Why is Bush getting the bishop's blessing?

Bergen Record ^ | 10.14.04 | Mary Ellen Schoonmaker

[Coleus]

Why is Bush getting the bishop's blessing?

Thursday, October 14, 2004

NEWARK'S ARCHBISHOP John Myers wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal last month on why Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. It was titled "A Voter's Guide."

Myers wrote that abortion and research that destroys human embryos are evil and that no other issue outweighs that evil in this presidential race: not the death penalty, poverty, or the war in Iraq.

The archbishop did not name names, but his message is clear: Catholics can't vote for John Kerry. Since Catholics make up one-quarter of the voting population, Myers would hand the election on a silver platter to President Bush.

Another archbishop, Charles Chaput of Colorado, is even more blunt: Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice or supports embryonic stem cell research is a sin, and the voter must confess it before receiving communion.

These dire warnings are part of an attempt by both the Bush campaign and conservative bishops to deliver the Catholic vote for the 2004 Republican ticket. In other words, Bush is endorsed by God.

This is a hard pill for many Catholics to swallow. In any election, American voters do not like to be dictated to - and this is no ordinary race. How can it be reduced to one issue when so much is at stake?

Bush and Kerry have starkly different views on preemptive war, how to fight terrorism, reducing nuclear proliferation, preserving the environment and expanding health care. All of these issues have the potential to save or destroy a great many lives.

Yet Catholic Kerry supporters are being told they must put aside their opposition to Bush's policies, which many of them have reached on moral grounds, and vote for a man who they believe has done some rather immoral things: taken the nation to war on false pretenses and made the world less safe by recklessly concentrating his resources on Iraq instead of the war on terror.

Some Catholic voters would consider their positions on these issues "pro-life."

But Myers says in his article that it's a numbers game: What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year? Sadly, other issues do rival those numbers. Millions have died in civil wars in Africa in recent years, and genocide is happening in the Sudan right now. Millions have died from AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and millions continue to be infected around the world. Millions could die in a military showdown with North Korea, for instance, if nuclear weapons were used.

Bush is pro-life, although he said during his first campaign he would not try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. But this time around, if reelected, he would likely name one or two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given that his favorites on the court are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, it's certainly possible that a future court would have enough votes to ban abortion.

But so far, Bush has done little to significantly lower the abortion rate in the United States. In some places, abortions have likely increased due to unemployment. And the U.N. Population Fund estimates that Bush's repeated withholding of U.S. funds pledged for family planning programs has led to hundreds of thousands of abortions in poor countries.

The conservative bishops have the right to speak out, even organize voter drives, although in coming so close to campaigning for a particular candidate, they may be jeopardizing the church's tax-exempt status.

For the record, I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and therefore, abortion is wrong.

But I also believe most wars are wrong.

I believe it's wrong to stand by while half a continent needlessly suffers and dies from AIDS. It's wrong to allow people in this country to die of easily curable illness because they have no health insurance. It's wrong to condemn children to lifelong poverty and waste their minds by denying them even the most basic education. It's wrong to allow corporate greed and influence to take precedence over fairness and generosity in the workplace, in the environment and in how we care for the most vulnerable in our nation and the world.

All of these issues, and a host of others, are relevant in this pivotal, polarized election, which defies reduction to a simple referendum on abortion.

The church should be working to lower the abortion rate in this country. But telling people how they must vote, on condition of losing their souls, goes too far.

---

Mary Ellen Schoonmaker is a Record editorial writer. Send comments to oped@northjersey.com, schoonmaker@northjersey.com

[Coleus]

I just knew where she was leading considering she writes for the Bergen Record; it's just the same liberal mantra, nothing different. The world is full of problems not addressed when a republican is in office and during the 8 yrs. of the stain maker everything was just great.

[Williams]

According to Kerry, God tells him to be a liberal, created homosexuality, and all those embryos are just going to waste.

[elizabetty]

Why is it people who do not believe what Catholics believe want to be Catholics? I am astounded by this idea that you can say you are a devout Catholic but I do not abide by its principles. I guess that is it, John Kerry in his religion, like everyhing else, is unprincipled.

[kimosabe31]

Yet Catholic kerry supporters are being told they must put aside their opposition to Bush's policies, which many of them have reached on moral grounds, and vote for a man who they believe has done some rather immoral things...

Any catholics that feel they have chosen on "MORAL GROUNDS" to support kerry are as terribly confused as the lady that wrote this column.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

They (liberals) view the church as property and as a power variable to be used to advance their liberal agenda. The tendency has roots in the clergy's involvement in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War and in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

It seems strange and it makes no sense (to claim to be "Catholic" while going against Catholic teaching). Clinton did something similar from a Protestant/Baptist point of view. And African-American liberals do that as well.

[browardchad]

For the record, I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and therefore, abortion is wrong.

Not wrong enough to overcome her liberal mindset, obviously.

(Thanks for posting -- great job with the links!)

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[NYer]

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES
These five current issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be deliberately performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.

1. Abortion

The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

2. Euthanasia

Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia also is a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.

4. Human Cloning

"Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fission,' cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union" (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

"When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral" (UHP 10).

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[libs_kma]

I'm catholic and I was an altar boy as well. Thats why I can look at Lurch and on that one issue alone say he is dead wrong. I'm voting for President Bush for many other reasons. But If I needed just one not to vote for Lurch, it would be this one. He says "I can't legislate my beliefs to others who don't share those beliefs" I say he doesn't actually have beliefs. That's his dilemma for choosing public life. I know, for an absolute fact, that if I were in public life, my beliefs would be right out there in front of me. There would be no doubt about what I believed. If that meant I would lose votes because of that belief then so be it. What kind of man would I be if I gave up my beliefs for votes? Not the kind of man I could look at in the mirror every morning. And that means more to me than any vote ever could.

[dsc]

"These dire warnings are part of an attempt by both the Bush campaign and conservative bishops to deliver the Catholic vote for the 2004 Republican ticket."

So, "the Bush campaign" is issuing orders to bishops? How come they haven't ordered every bishop to make similar announcements?

"In other words, Bush is endorsed by God."

Well, yeah. Or at least he's doing a much better job of trying to abide by God's commandments.

[dsc]

"What kind of man would I be if I gave up my beliefs for votes?"

A democrat?

[Lexinom]

Two words: Cognitive Dissonance.

Fact: Horror of horrors, one of the two men running for president is more godly than the other.

[DaveMSmith]

Just a few things:

The author neglected to mention the Archdiocese of Boston has filed denounciation of Kerry for Heresy

Kerry insists on using 'articles of faith' when describing his pro-abortion and pro-homosexual positions when actually they are defined as natural law. I supposed 'articles of faith' polled better.

[Lexinom]

That's just the Catholic Church shilling for Bush. They're all Bush stooges, ya know <sarc>

[PrepareToLeave]

How inspiring to witness these bishops and priests taking a stand like this. Abortion is the #1 issue and to vote for anyone who will prolong this murderous act is to share in it. I pray that the other Christian faiths will be more vocal in admonishing their flocks.

www.preparetoleave.com

[Aquinasfan]

What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year?

None, not even war. 40+ million dead since 1973.

[SuziQ]

The archbishop did not name names, but his message is clear: Catholics can't vote for John Kerry. Since Catholics make up one-quarter of the voting population, Myers would hand the election on a silver platter to President Bush.

Good gracious, I sure HOPE so!!

The NY Times had an article about this yesterday, or the day before. It won't be long before folks start screaming about separation of Church and state, and denial of tax-exempt status. I'd say discuss that action against the Catholic Church only after all the black churches that John Kerry has been in this year have been discussed. I haven't seen George W. Bush in any Catholic pulpits, has anyone else?

[mware]

Why is it people who do not believe what Catholics believe want to be Catholics? I am astounded by this idea that you can say you are a devout Catholic but I do not abide by its principles.

Kind of ironic when you consider Kerry's comments about the scriptures in the Book of James.

[animoveritas]

Talk about logic fallicies. A sixth grader could see right through the emotional argument.

[applpie]

could it be becasue he has the courage and fortitude to stand up to Mr. Antichrist Kerry and his demonic minions?

[B Knotts]

The archbishop did not name names, but his message is clear: Catholics can't vote for John Kerry. Since Catholics make up one-quarter of the voting population, Myers would hand the election on a silver platter to President Bush.

No...it is Kerry who would hand the election to President Bush.

No one is stopping Kerry from accepting the teaching of the Church, and becoming pro-life.

[jwalsh07]

Equating pacifism resulting in genocide to the killing of the unborn is an argument bereft of morality and logic.

[Dominick]

But Myers says in his article that it's a numbers game: What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year? Sadly, other issues do rival those numbers. Millions have died in civil wars in Africa in recent years, and genocide is happening in the Sudan right now. Millions have died from AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and millions continue to be infected around the world. Millions could die in a military showdown with North Korea, for instance, if nuclear weapons were used.

None of which Kerry would do anything different than Bush, no wait I take that back. Kerry would skillfully negotiate over nothing while these atrocities take place.

IMHO, Bush isn't a shining star here either, there hasn't been much action in Sudan like there should have been. Bush is also not a 100% pro-life candidate, however, a pro-life vote for anyone BUT Bush is an effective Vote for Kerry.

I may also remind this boneheaded author that Clinton negotiated the paper-tiger agreement with the PRK, and they promptly added to the PRK national stock of toilet paper.

[airborne]

I think Kerry said it best-

"I'm a politician who just happens to be a Catholic."

[ArrogantBustard]

Looks like the author cannot, in good conscience, vote for either Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry. She must find some other candidate to support. Or decline to vote.

[NewJerseyJoe]

The bishops aren't telling voters who to vote or not vote for. They're reminding adult Catholics of important things they should already know and which they already should be using to guide the moral decisions in their lives.

Of course, any "pro-life Bergen Record writer" has been indoctrinated enough by her employer to know what she is and isn't allowed to write. By trying to have it both ways, she fails miserably at both. She is the wrong writer in the wrong newspaper at the wrong time.

[NewJerseyJoe]

> Equating pacifism resulting in genocide to the killing of the unborn is an argument bereft of morality and logic.

Correct. It doesn't match Catholic teaching for centuries. Unfortunately, the Vatican has been playing a game of moral equivalency for the last few decades; the end result is that a lot of supposed Catholics really don't know what to think any more. You can blame the bishops (and yes, the pope) for their various confusing and ambivalent statements over the last 34 years.

[mabelkitty]

Wow!

[Askel5]

=== I believe life begins at conception


Anyone who believes this cannot possibly vote for Bush.

[Question_Assumptions]

One other thing that they should make clear is that a vote for Kerry isn't just a vote for Roe v. Wade, it's a vote for partial birth abortion and a vote against parental consent.

[Psycho_Bunny]

In other words, Bush is endorsed by God.

Typical liberal blarney reflecting shallow, wanna-be intellectualism.

[old and tired]

Editorials like this make my blood boil. I actually haven't read the whole thing - my blood pressure can't stand it.

[cpforlife.org]

PING

John Kerry-10/7/04 (Presidential Debate): “First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins.

John Kerry-10/13/04 (Presidential Debate): “I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.”

4/23/04: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass speaks in support of baby murder aka abortion at national rally in Washington, D.C. Kerry is flanked by Kate Michelman, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, left and Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, right. Feldt also lavishly praised Kerry at the Democratic National Convention.

Kerry on abortion-10/7/04: “You know, it's just not that simple.”

G.K. Chesterton: “Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles.”

Kerry on abortion-10/7/04 “But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it”

Being against killing unborn children-abortion is not “an article of faith”, it is being humane and civilized. It is a scientific fact not an “an article of faith” that human life begins at conception—not birth.

Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.

Abortion is murder.

[Salvation]

A bump for Archbishop John Myers!

[Mr. Silverback]

The two defining pictures of Kerry are the one you've posted, and another AP photo of him at a fundraiser with Patty Osama Mama Murphy and Baghdad Jim McDermott, all three of them chummy as all get out and beaming from ear to ear.

[Lexinom]

I believe life begins at conception and therefore, abortion is wrong.

But I also believe most wars are wrong.

I believe it's wrong to stand by while half a continent needlessly suffers and dies from AIDS. It's wrong to allow people in this country to die of easily curable illness because they have no health insurance. It's wrong to condemn children to lifelong poverty and waste their minds by denying them even the most basic education. It's wrong to allow corporate greed and influence to take precedence over fairness and generosity in the workplace, in the environment and in how we care for the most vulnerable in our nation and the world.

You can actually make the case that war is wrong. You can launch a searing indictment against America for doing too little about the dreadful death and suffering in Africa. You can chastise her for her greed - which greed permeates almost every aspect of our lives to some degree.

You cannot, cannot, cannot, however, hold these positions with any consistency while looking the other way while the little lives least deserving of death are thoughtlessly snuffed out for no better reason than another person's whim.

You have to subscribe to what I call the "poof" theory: At some arbitrary point along in her development, POOF! the entity suddenly becomes human. That, my friends, is anathema not only to morality, our religious convictions, and science, but to common sense.

[Lexinom]

The two defining pictures of Kerry are the one you've posted, and another AP photo of him at a fundraiser with Patty Osama Mama Murphy and Baghdad Jim McDermott, all three of them chummy as all get out and beaming from ear to ear.

He left out the third of Washington's favorite sons and daughters, Maria Can't-vote-very-well.

[Mo1]

But I also believe most wars are wrong.

No one likes wars .. but sometimes one has to go to war to save peoples lives

Hitler murdered Millions of people .. and would have murder millions more if there was no war to stop him

Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people and would have murdered more if he had not been stopped

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Kerry on abortion-10/7/04 “But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it”

You can't say you believe abortion is murder but you aren't going to try to stop it. That would be like Lincoln saying, "I believe all men are created equal and slavery is therefore wrong but I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it because some people may disagree"

That just proves the man has no core beliefs at all. If you are not going to try to stop what you believe is murder of children, you'll never defend anything.

[BobS]

"In some places, abortions have likely increased due to unemployment."

Huh?

I don't understand the cause-effect approach this person assumes. Is she saying guys are laying about having sex with women instead of looking for a job; or is she saying women are laying about having sex with guys instead of looking for a job? Clue me in, please.

[hiredhand]

I'm in a bit of a hurry to get out the door this morning, so I'll be "paraphrasing" some things... :-)

For the record, war is sanctioned by YHVH. He tells us NOT to "kill" in the 10 Commandments, but gave a direct command to the Israelites to kill ALL the inhabitants of the Land of Cannan. But then, He says that "vengence is Mine".

This is a big reson why the lost try and say that the Scriptures contradict themselves.

This seems confusing, but it's NOT. It's very, very simple. YHVH is SOVREIGN. All things work for the good of those who love Him. If He says do NOT kill...then don't kill. If He says go to war, then GO to war. If He says that vengence belongs to Him, DON'T take it for yourself! This issue is much more fundemental and personal than most people realize. In fact, Paul's letter to the church at Rome (specifically 7, 8 and 6:14) speak about this very matter of Yeshua's (Jesus') saving grace and indwelling of us by Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) as opposed to the limitedness of Torah (law, or "instruction").

The "poof theory?! That's GOOD! I never quite was able to verbalize it this way before, but that's exactly how a lot of people feel.

I have an analogy that use with people who support the murder of the unborn. It goes like this...

Down here in North Carolina, we're largely an agriculture state. If I plant 500 acres of seed corn, I can go over to the Agriculture office in Burlington, and purchase crop insurance. We've had some bad weather here the past several years, so this might be a wise and prudent thing....JUST in case I lose my crop before it's ready to harvest.

Now, let's say that we have another hurricane, and all 500 acres of my fields are swept away to the point of taking my seed corn with it.

I have suffered a total, and complete loss. All my investment for the seed, wear and tear on my equipment, my time and effort....gone.

Now I ask, should I be able to claim this as a loss for reimbursement from the insurance that I purchased? Of course you say!

But I ask WHY?! It wasn't really corn was it?! It was just seed! You don't mean to say that it was going to become CORN do you?!?

As if it was going to become something else! The idiocy of their thoughts regarding the unborn are very apparent with this story, and I've had more than one person get mad. Godless leftists always get mad when they realize they're wrong. That's a bad sign ya know. :-)

Sometimes, the light comes on, and they realize that unborn kids have less concern given for them than common corn, and I can tell that they are convicted in their hearts. GOOD! Maybe they'll act accordingly, but I usually never find out.

Now...I usually don't tell this to unbelievers, because by this point they're usually so bent out of shape that they want to be away from me, BUT..... I'm pretty sure that it was Jeremiah who quoted the Lord when he said,

"I knew you in your mother's womb before you were formed...".

Our nation is perched precariously. We are guilty as a nation of

1. The denial of Adonai (the Lord).
2. The abominable sin (homosexuality).
3. The murder of the unborn.

These three things have brought a lot of believers to their knees, and I "believe" have brought a reprieve to our nation for a time. But it is coming.

[EDINVA]

The writing seems more that of a high school senior fulfilling an essay obligation than a professional journalist.

[Ed Current]

But so far, Bush has done little to significantly lower the abortion rate in the United States. In some places, abortions have likely increased due to unemployment. And the U.N. Population Fund estimates that Bush's repeated withholding of U.S. funds pledged for family planning programs has led to hundreds of thousands of abortions in poor countries.

George Bush has no legal, ethical, or Biblical mandate to enforce the Constitution defying and conscience defiling majority opinion stated in Roe v Wade. Mr. Bush claims to be fighting the war on terror, but abortionists routinely exterminate more human life in a day than terrorists have taken in all their carnage. The Prophet may compel the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad to blindly obey terrorist commands; but The Constitution dosen't force the President to blindly follow unconstitutional opinions. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, removes all doubt as to who the real scimitar wielding terrorist is in America:

"The judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

---

What other issue can outweigh 1.3 million abortions in America each year?

None, not even war. 40+ million dead since 1973.

17 posted on 10/15/2004 4:21:57 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)

=== I believe life begins at conception

Anyone who believes this cannot possibly vote for Bush.

31 posted on 10/15/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)

YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT!

---

Exterminators and their innocent, virtually defenseless victims have existed throughout history. The exterminators acquired the means to terminate the lives of their victims for any, or no reason.

Extermination has occurred under various labels, such as: serial killers, terrorists, Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, abortion, and the Soviet Gulags.

R.J. Rummel has defined and classified various exterminations by government @ Definition of Democide (Genocide and Mass Murder):

Genocide

: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).

Politicide

: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.

Mass Murder

: the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.

Democide

: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated:

"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."

The fundamental purpose of government is to protect innocent human life!

R.J. Rummel:

Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder. If we imprison a girl in our home, force her to do exhausting work throughout the day, not even minimally feed and clothe her, and watch her gradually die a little each day without helping her, then her inevitable death is not only our fault, but our practical intention. It is murder. Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide.

In FT January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork made the following comments about Roe v. Wade:

"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that....Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception....Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion."

Rummel again: War Versus Genocide And Mass MurderPublished in The Wall Street Journal (July 7, 1986).

Our century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars. World War I saw nine-million people killed in battle, an incredible record that was far surpassed within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World War II. Even the number killed in twentieth century revolutions and civil wars have set historical records. In total, this century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts is so far about 35,654,000.

Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war.

Rummel's conclusion: Power, Genocide, And Mass Murder

The empirical and theoretical conclusion from these and other results is clear. The way to virtually eliminate genocide and mass murder appears to be through restricting and checking power. This means to foster democratic freedom.

There is no moral difference between a government that permits abortion, from one that fails to prosecute serial killers, pursue terrorists, or promote the Jewish Holocaust, Khmer Rouge, Great Terror, China Land Reform, Mao Ze-dong's Cultural Revolution, and the Soviet Gulags!

The federal branches of government are coordinate, NOT coequal and they are all subordinate to the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law, NOT the Supreme Court:

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates

The federal courts, using an injudicious doctrine known as the 'Incorporation of the 14^th Amendment' (Gitlow v. New York (1925) [19] ) , have hyperinflated their jurisdiction beyond the confines of the U.S. Constitution to grotesque proportions. Rather than admit they have no jurisdiction, as Marshall did in Amendment V: Barron v. Baltimore and declare what the Constitution states with regard to a particular case over which they have jurisdicion - federal judges fabricate their own private interpretation from the hubris opined in novel dicta and deviant precedent, from which even greater deviation is justified in subsequent decisions.

For the history and thorough refutation of the Incorporation Doctrine, see the following: The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama, 49 Ala. L. Rev.434-754 (1998)., Jaffree v. Bd of School Comm., 554 F. Supp. 1104 (1983) Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Second Edition, Raoul Berger, Forrest McDonald , Liberty Fund, Inc.; 2nd edition (June 1997) The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights; The Incorporation Theory, Charles Fairman, Stanley Morrison, Leonard Williams Levy, Da Capo Press , January 1970

James Madison stated in The Federalist #48: "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2

Federalist No. 81

" The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous....But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.''

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''

To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; PUBLIUS.

Article 6, Clause 2

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.

Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 - Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.

"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).

Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

=========================================================================================

cognitive dissonance
n. Psychology

A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing terrorists while approving of abortion.

If you aren't conflicted, seek a conscience.

[austingirl]

When Kerry said he can't put his deeply religious Catholic values into legislation, I was livid. Holding life sacred is not just a Catholic value, but a Judeo-Christian value as well as being plain old moral.

[Ed Current]

KERRY is a flaming idiot and moral moron. His statements about abortion are equivalent to:

I personally believe that owning a slave, or gassing a Jew is wrong; but I can't force view that on anyone else.

[austingirl]

Well put.

[hiredhand]

President Bush dismayed me with this commend in the last debate about reducing the number of abortions.

I really did expect him to reitterate the wrongness of it, and not make such a compromising statement.

[Ed Current]

Bush's "rape, incest, life of the mother" exceptions are equivalent to Clinton's "safe, legal and rare."

The Exception Makes the Rule Pro-Life With Exceptions A ...

Colleen Parro, "The Exception Makes the Rule '"Pro-Life With Exceptions"' A Contradiction in Terms," Republican National Coalition for Life, January 22, 2002. "This year, President Bush issued a proclamation, as have other Presidents before him, declaring Sunday, January 20, 2002 as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." It says that "the right to life itself" is chief among the rights on which the American republic is founded.

The AP reported on January 20 that, "Mr. Bush called on Americans to 'reject the notion that some lives are less worthy of protection than others' . . ." A noble thought, and one we share, but how will that happen when the President himself has never said that he would do anything to try to overturn Roe? How can that happen when he, and many politicians in the Republican Party have clearly said that abortion can be justified in some cases? How can that happen when President Bush's own position contradicts the proclamation? Indeed, he supports "exceptions" for babies conceived through rape or incest, a view that deems those babies "less worthy of protection than others." How can that happen when the President and others in power think abortion is justified if the mother's life is in jeopardy, when today's medical science and technology make it unnecessary to ever kill a baby to save his mother's life? How can it happen when Laura Bush, First Lady of the land and the person closest to the President joins his mother, Barbara Bush, in saying that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned?

Beyond that, how can protection of the right to life be restored when important leaders in the pro-life movement endorse as "pro-life" politicians whose commitment and actions do not match their rhetoric? How can it be restored as long as grassroots pro-lifers don't demand, in exchange for their support, that candidates take a position on innocent life at every stage of development that leaves no room for "exceptions" or compromise? After all, it's one thing to prefer a less-than-perfect candidate who is running against a pro- abortion activist like Bill Clinton or Al Gore. But it's quite another to pronounce him or her PRO-LIFE in big headlines, giving the false impression that the candidate intends to actively pursue our goals. While it appears that hearts and minds are changing, albeit slowly, in the end it will be public policies and laws that will restore respect for life in America. As long as pro-lifers are willing to bestow the "pro-life" mantle on politicians who truly are not, abortion, deadly experiments on human embryos, human cloning, and yes, infanticide, will remain legal.

The exception makes the rule. And so, we pray for unity in the pro-life movement. The politicians will say and do what they think they must to get our support. The outcome is our responsibility. If we are to succeed in this our Godly mission, we must demand of them total respect for all innocent life - no exceptions, no compromise.

---

Schwarz, Chapter 10: "Abortion in Cases of Rape, Incest, Health and Life of the Woman?" "The child conceived in rape is one of us, merely smaller and less developed and more dependent, and not in full view, but equally a person. Killing her is wrong, just as killing any child is wrong. We must remember that the child is absolutely innocent of the crime of her father. She is not a part of her mother's body, and she is not a part of her father's character. She inherits character traits from both her parents, but in her individual being as a person, she is absolutely distinct from both of them. Even the character traits that are received from a parent are now her own traits. The child is totally her own person. She is not responsible for the crime that led to her conception, and she is untainted by it.¹ Seeing her in these negative ways is sheer prejudice, not based on reality, but at odds with it." http://www.ohiolife.org/mqa/10-0.asp

Russell E. Saltzman, is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri, and editor of the independent Lutheran publication Forum Letter. This is reprinted with permission from the August 2002 Forum Letter, and is copyright 2002 by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. "Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. "I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there’s a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.1docs/16- 1pg19.html

Robert Hart, "Her Mother’s Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003. " She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing—a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/17.1docs/17- 1pg18.html

Pamela Pearson Wong, "Abortion’s House of Cards," Concerned Women for America, Family Voice, January/February 2001. "I, having lived through rape and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape,’ feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest," says Kathleen DeZeeuw in Victims and Victors. "I feel we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story." We can begin by educating the public and legislators on what the women themselves—the victims of rape and incest—say about abortion. "Get Victims and Victors to legislators. Ask them to call for congressional hearings," says Dr. Reardon. "Urge them not to provide money for abortions resulting from rape or incest until they hear what the women say." http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2001- 01/14-20.asp

David C. Reardon, Julie Makimaa and Amy Sobie (Editors), Victims and Victors (San Francisco, CA 94109: Acorn Books, 2000). "In Victims and Victors, 20 women like the ones quoted above share what it is like to face a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. They speak bravely and candidly of the pain of sexual assault, of the sadness and trauma of abortion, and of the joy and healing of giving birth." http://www.afterabortion.org/Victims/

Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke, Why Can't We Love Them Both, (Snowflake, AZ 85937: Heritage House 76, Inc., 1998) Chapter 29, Rape. States that 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies occur per year in the United States. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_can t_we_love_them_both_29.asp